A very old and very evil master vampire like Jerry gives Charley a choice to just forget about him. Why would he do this and not just kill him? I doubt an evil vampire master like Jerry would bother with the choice and just kill Charley instead.
sharePersonally I don't care for the tortured vampire-I prefer the "evil and loving it" variety. Save the tortured soul for Larry Talbot.
However--I do not think Dandridge would have left Charlie alone--not when he saw Amy resembled someone he knew (but he kept portraits of other women so it was a selfish hoarding kind of thing not a "one true love" situation like with Blacula). A confrontation was unavoidable--and if you think about it--Dandridge is kind of psycho to even make the offer--how would YOU feel if you knew your next door neighbor was routinely luring people to kill them? Could you keep silent as you do your homework when yo hear a scream next door?
Charlie would become neurotic---and have to worry if Dandridge might change his mind. Taking the guarantee of a vampire--not very trustworthy.
I think his choice was just Dandridge feeling sorry for himself. It was more about him trying to prey on Charlie's emotions before killing him.
Jerry tells Charley to forget about him. He doesn't want the cops disrupting the neighborhood and becoming suspicious about him. So he's telling Charley to stop snooping and he'll let him live, but not out of kindness as much as to keep himself safe.
When Charley tries to burn him with the crucifix and Jerry says "fool". He is basically exasperated that he gave this boy a chance to live, but didn't take it. But he can't very well have him continue to snoop around. So he wanted to make it look like an accident.
-Di
If you watch closely, Jerry takes his good old time with Charley at the window, and it's Jerry's own fault that he took so long to kill the kid before waking his mother.
share